Home Blu-ray ReviewJul 31 2015 02:01 PMPerhaps the least ingratiating or creative entry in the DreamWorks Animation canon, Tim Johnson’s Home borrows a bit from E.T. and other sci-fi films and tel... Read More

Places in the Heart Blu-ray ReviewJul 30 2015 11:04 AMRobert Benton has not been a prolific movie director, with only eleven films on his directorial resume, but his work includes serious dramas such as Kramer v... Read More

I happen to be an art historian, and so will add a small note about this movie. First, the film, overall, is good at portraying the character of the "warrior Pope" Julius II, well played by Rex Harrison. Heston's Michelangelo is also good. One inevitable flaw, however, is that the movie was made 20 years before the Sistine Chapel's ceiling was cleaned. Before the 1980s, many thought that the famous fresco on the ceiling had muted colors, perhaps in part because Michelangelo was a primarily a sculptor. But then it was figured out that centuries of grime and candle smoke were obscuring the beauty and brilliant colors of the original work. When, in the 1980s, the ceiling was finally cleaned, brilliant "Technicolor-like" colors were revealed, showing what the work looked like when new. But in the 1960s, as I've said, that was all in the future, and so in the movie when the newly finished painting is shown it is seen in its rather obscured state. It's amazing they got permission to film in the Sistine Chapel, and as I said the movie is still well worth watching. I just suggest looking at wikipedia or some other source to see how the painting looks today:

trajan: Yes, you're right. It's been a while since I've seen it. But now that you mention it, I believe they filmed some of M's sculptures, as well as the outside of the Sistine, but the interior was an impressive studio creation. Still, in the impressive recreation of the paintings, they are still "dirty," and so don't look the way we know they looked today....

I happen to be an art historian, and so will add a small note about this movie. First, the film, overall, is good at portraying the character of the "warrior Pope" Julius II, well played by Rex Harrison. Heston's Michelangelo is also good. One inevitable flaw, however, is that the movie was made 20 years before the Sistine Chapel's ceiling was cleaned. Before the 1980s, many thought that the famous fresco on the ceiling had muted colors, perhaps in part because Michelangelo was a primarily a sculptor. But then it was figured out that centuries of grime and candle smoke were obscuring the beauty and brilliant colors of the original work. When, in the 1980s, the ceiling was finally cleaned, brilliant "Technicolor-like" colors were revealed, showing what the work looked like when new. But in the 1960s, as I've said, that was all in the future, and so in the movie when the newly finished painting is shown it is seen in its rather obscured state. It's amazing they got permission to film in the Sistine Chapel, and as I said the movie is still well worth watching. I just suggest looking at wikipedia or some other source to see how the painting looks today:

... the film, overall, is good at portraying the character of the "warrior Pope" Julius II, well played by Rex Harrison. Heston's Michelangelo is also good.

If nothing else the film shows to a wide audience the technique of fresco and how it takes a team to put up fresh plaster and mix all those paints. IIUC Carol Reed took great pains to use correct costumes and weapons in all the fight scenes.

Being made when it did the film also had to dance around aspects of Michelangelo's personal life, although it was more straightforward about Julius II. I love the scene when the Pope comes riding up on horseback with his girlfriend.